The Three Most Confusing Issues with Vegas

mdindestin wrote on 12/13/2013, 11:44 PM
I wish I had a dollar for every hour of reading to grasp the best practices for Vegas. Final delivery for me is for the computer and vimeo, DVD, and Blu-Ray.

I've got a Canon HV30 that I still rely on and mix its PF24 footage with DSLR video true 24 fps progressive footage. So, here are the three issues and all are related to mixing camcorder and DSLR events that are confusing:

1. Although the Canon HV30 brags about recording in PF24, obtaining real 24p requires inverse telecine to deinterlace. So all the advice on blending fields or interpolating seems to go out the window. Why? because the HV30 doesn't include flags in the video screen to alert Vegas how to create progressive frames out of the "bastardized" 60i stream:

2. Disable resampling. Is it wise to disable or not?

3. The whole computer versus studio RGB thing If one is not doing any color grading or correcting.

And please don't point me to the handbrake tutorial. It's probably great, but it's for interlaced footage which adds to the confusion. My main focus is high quality 720p. I'd say 1080p, but even 720p chokes my clients computers.

I've just got a mental block on all this. If anyone can bottom line me on all this, I'd welcome it.


Grazie wrote on 12/13/2013, 11:50 PM
I'll stick my head above the parapet here, but where is the interlace with those two sources of media?



mdindestin wrote on 12/13/2013, 11:56 PM
Like several other cams, the HV30 records 24fps in a 60i stream.
Grazie wrote on 12/14/2013, 12:03 AM
Wow! - Head back under the parapet.


mdindestin wrote on 12/14/2013, 12:07 AM
ushere wrote on 12/14/2013, 5:12 AM
they just don't build parapets like they used to....
Grazie wrote on 12/14/2013, 5:35 AM
That'll be the Castellations. And they are DEFINITELY non-progressive!


Dan Sherman wrote on 12/14/2013, 9:58 AM
A parapet is a low wall projecting from the edge of a platform, terrace, or roof. Parapets may rise above the cornice of a building or form the upper portion of a defensive wall on a castle.

So others among the architecturally ignorant such as I need not run searching out a definition.
johnmeyer wrote on 12/14/2013, 11:46 AM
Back to actually helping the guy ...

I have never tried to use Vegas to remove pulldown in captured DV AVI files (or other 60i files with 24p embedded). As a result, I don't know if your failure to get the pulldown removal to work correctly is caused by some weirdness (lack of flag) in your HV30, or whether you just haven't set the Vegas properties correctly.

If you want to try again using the Vegas capture, the search word you should use in the Vegas help file is "pulldown" which they use instead of "inverse telecine" or IVTC. I think there are two different settings that you must adjust.

The workflow I have used hundreds of times (probably more than that) for extracting telecined 24p from 60i uses the TIVTC plugin for AVISynth. If you don't want to go through the hassle and considerable learning curve to use AVISynth, you can take the 60i captured AVI file and put it into VirtualDub and use use one of the IVTC plugins for that. There is virtually no learning curve for VirtualDub. You just download it, run it, drop your video file onto it, open the "Filters" dialog (similar to the fX dialog in Vegas) and apply the built-in IVTC filter. Then, choose a render codec ("Compression" dialog) and render out the resultin 24p video file. If you don't have a codec, just download the free HuffYUV codec. It is lossless, and the files, while large, are still manageable.

Finally, if you own Cineform, it has IVTC built-in.

As for your other questions ...

[I]Disable resampling. Is it wise to disable or not? [/I]It all depends on what results you are trying to get. Resample gets used when the frame rate you ask for in the final render does not match frame rate of your source files. For instance, if you start with 24p material and then want to render to 60i (a.k.a., 29.97 interlaced), then the render codec must somehow generate additional fields (not just frames, but fields) in order to get more frame (and fields) per second. When resample is turned on, either explicitly or by using the default "smart resample," those additional frames are created by simply blending together adjacent frames, giving the appropriate weight to each frame depending on how close it time each one is to the point in time that the generated frame must occupy. This technique provides very smooth motion, but the technique of simply blending fields & frames creates blurry frames, so the resulting render will always look "soft."

If you instead disable resample, the addition fields and frames are created by creating exact duplicates of existing fields and frames. This produces video that is exactly as sharp and crisp as the original, but which, because of the duplicates, is not as smooth as true 60i would be. However, this is how we've all watched 24p (film) material for the last half century, so most people will not object to the results.

When rendering 24p to 60i (which I do almost every day), I either disable resample (95% of all of my renders) or I use an external utility that uses motion estimation rather than blending to create the additional frames. Nick Hope posted a tutorial on how to use external utilities to do this much more complex conversion. His tutorial actually was how to change PAL to NTSC (50i to 60i), but the same exact techniques can be used for 24p to 60i.

[I]The whole computer versus studio RGB thing If one is not doing any color grading or correcting.[/I]Search this forum for user name "GlennChan" and "studio RGB." Glenn is the guru, and has written many tutorials on the subject. You can find those tutorials linked to in this forum, and you can just do a Google search on Glenn's name and "vegas tutorial" and you should find them.

videoITguy wrote on 12/14/2013, 11:55 AM
As jm just said - back to the OP's concern. This situation with the Canon output at 24PF is well known in the pro community, and myself included.
I use the top of the line Canon, so don't have a feel for your camera, but this situation is most easily solved by capturing with the Cineform codec and then editing on the SCS VegasPro timeline with that codec installed. This gets everything correct and you don't futz with the settings. That is if you must shoot 24PF - which I solely use for greenscreen work.
mdindestin wrote on 12/14/2013, 2:52 PM
I should have mentioned I do have Cineform installed so both deinterlacing and removing pull down is taken care of. My confusion appears to be from not understanding that Vegas can deinterlace it just can’t remove pulldown. Ding!

I have captured inside Cineform and added the 1440 x 1080 AVIs to a 1920 x 1080 Vegas project.

Keep in mind though, I’m mixing Cineform AVIs with Canon DSLR MOVs - both now being true 24fps progressive footage - but with different containers, codecs, resolutions and PARs. It seems counter intuitive that would be a good editing starting point.

Would there be a benefit to rendering the DSLR MOVs to the Cineform codec? At that point, I could do the multi-cam edits and coloring with consistency. I'd still have the issue with the mismatched resolution and PARs, but that does not seem to matter as far as I can tell.

Also, just so I don’t assume I know the answer JohnMyer, why do you render 24p to 60i almost every day?
videoITguy wrote on 12/14/2013, 3:14 PM
In general VegasPro has been designed to mix media well on the timeline. This is a plus! It depends on whether the handling to decode and re-render is fully functional for each independent variety of file that you have placed on the timeline. Together it should work very well.

That said some people have issues with DLR .mov containers and their handling could certainly be expedited by transcoding to Cineform as the digital intermediate to place on the timeline. This is what Cineform is all about.
johnmeyer wrote on 12/14/2013, 9:50 PM
The fewer renders you do, the better. Also, always try to keep everything as close to its native format as possible. Therefore, if you do have to render to an intermediate, keep the resolution and framerate the same.

Vegas can remove pulldown on 60i files that are used as containers for 24p (which is done so the results can be stored on DV or HDV tape which only allow (in NTSC land) for 29.97 interlaced (60i). However since you have Cineform, that is definitely the best way to capture and remove pulldown in one step.

I do film transfers from actual movie film. For 24p I usually encode on DVD as 24p with the pulldown flag enabled, so in that case I don't render to 60i. However, for 15, 16, & 18 fps films (common film speeds), there is no workflow I know of to encode to 24p with the pulldown flag enabled and end up with anything watchable. Therefore for these speeds I render directly to 60i, with resample disabled on all events (I have scripts that do this).

I also occasionally render 24p to 60i using motion estimation in order to make Kinescopes look like the original video. There are two commercial companies that do this and one of them actually threatened to sue me when I posted some of my techniques over at With the proper techniques and with a really pristine Kinescope, I can actually do a pretty good job of making it look like you are watching an old videotape instead of a 24p film taken from a video screen of the live broadcast.
mdindestin wrote on 12/14/2013, 11:14 PM
I wish I knew about you a few months ago. I had all my father's 16mm and 8mm films digitized by a shop out of Maine. I just pulled in some of the clips to Vegas and matched the media properties which show up as 23.976 fps 1080 progressive.

This version had smart resample selected and I rendered out at 720p at 6,000,000 bps:

I couldn't see any difference between it and the one I rendered with disable resample selected.

Film was expensive so my father shot quickly and never on a tripod. I'd like to clean this up as much as possible through color correcting, stabilizing, whatever. Do you have any strong feelings on any of this?
johnmeyer wrote on 12/15/2013, 12:49 AM
I wish I knew about you a few months ago. I had all my father's 16mm and 8mm films digitized by a shop out of Maine. I just pulled in some of the clips to Vegas and matched the media properties which show up as 23.976 fps 1080 progressive.I can guarantee that your dad's film was not shot at that speed. Therefore the transfer shop either added pulldown (duplicate frames) or else the playback speed is going to be too fast. Pre-war silent 16mm film was shot at anything from 12 to 16 fps. Postwar 16mm film was usually shot at 18 fps, although 16 was still common. Most 8mm film was shot at 16 fps. All Super 8 film was shot at 18 fps. Sound 16mm is always 24 fps.

I just looked at your Vimeo sample and the speed is way too fast. Fortunately it is a simple matter to change the speed of the original file. Bob Grant ("farss" in this forum) just posted a way to do it in Vegas about a week ago. I've posted many times about using a free utility called AVIFrate to change the header of an AVI file so that it plays at a different speed. Both our methods leave the original video frames perfectly intact.

I'd like to clean this up as much as possible through color correcting, stabilizing, whatever. Do you have any strong feelings on any of this?I've posted, over the past decade, many dozens of times about my film restoration work. You can search on my name and "film restoration." This is the usual "before/after" clip I link to, although I have many others:

This film was in absolutely horrible shape, and normal cleaning procedures didn't help. Play it several times and you'll begin to see all the things that have been done. At first, all you'll notice is the dirt removal and color shift. However, the gamma has been fixed; notice all the detail enhancement; it has been motion stabilized (to get rid of gate weave, in addition to reducing operator camera shake).

This single frame shows the amount of detail enhancement possible. The original was a tiny little 8mm frame of film. Note the railings on the front porch:

I could go on, but I've posted so many times on this that if you are interested in more, just do the search I just recommended.

Grazie wrote on 12/15/2013, 12:58 AM
That last one, John, always blows me away - brilliant.


mdindestin wrote on 12/15/2013, 6:52 AM
Wow, that's an incredible difference. The porch and hitching posts have details that I wouldn't have thought were available.

I sure am enjoying all this great advice. Vegas has a great community of users.

I'm wondering now why the film transfer house didn't keep the native frame speed. Perhaps I opened up my trap espousing 24 fps, I don't remember. Sometimes, it's a professional's job to save someone from themself.